No you haven't. And you have already been shown why countless times

jiggs you ****** your graph shows usa oil production, as measured by number of wells, doubling with the increase in oil prices. It will go up again if prices go up again. This simply is not. that. hard.

Actually, dip****, it shows wells increasing back when blind investment and easy credit was abundant ... It's not anymore. Even if price goes back up to $100+, spooked investors won't return to a volatile industry. Certainly not at astronomical rates needed to maintain exponential growth for an industry with a 40% annual decline rate.

So, again... Yes, it's been covered. Try and follow along, and not make yourself look ridiculous by repeating dumb claims that have already been put in perspective.

so when oil production picks up with prices.... again, you'll shut the **** up about this finally?

It won't... and your safe comfortable star-spangled story is ****ed either way... high or low prices.

Physics don't really care about the economic voodoo that you worship.

So what has March brought us? Daily Impact:

• On Monday (March 9), Houston-based oil and gas company BPZ filed for bankruptcy, one day before defaulting on a $60 million payment due to bondholders.
  
• On Sunday (March 8) Dune Energy of Houston went into bankruptcy after its sale to another company fell through because of - wait for it - lack of financing.
  
• On Monday (March 2) American Eagle Energy Corporation of Colorado announced that it would not be able to make a $9.8 million interest payment due on a bond issue of $175 million. The interesting thing is, it would have been the very first interest payment on the bonds, which were issued just seven months ago. American Eagle shares have lost 96 per cent of their value; you can snap them up for 20 cents apiece.
  
• Whiting Petroleum, one of the larger operators in North Dakota’s Bakken play, and occupier of one of the sweetest of the sweet spots in that field, has put itself up for sale as a last resort to avoid bankruptcy. Sure, it had an operating profit of $1.8 billion last year, but to stay on the well-replacement treadmill it had to spend $2.9 billion. Nearly six billion dollars in debt, the company has an apparent net worth (total equity – total debt) of about 65 million.
  
  ...
  
• The U.S. Energy Information Agency, a longtime cheerleader for the oil “revolution,” predicts that April will see only a tiny increase - the slightest in four years - in U.S. production, because of the 41% decline since December in the number of oil rigs at work. Doesn’t take a crystal ball to see a flatline, or a decline, in May.

Still, you gotta love cons maintaining the safe "yeah, but they'll be back" platform over and over again... Because if there's one thing Wall St. excels at its repeating the same mistakes of losing money on a sure loser.

Again, have we finally gotten a testable prediction from you? Will you finally shut the **** up about this if production ramps up with price increases?

Yes we have. A few times now. U.S. crude production decline within 24 months, among others.

I'm glad you just admitted you're not really paying attention. You weren't voted the forum's absolute worst for nothing.

Probably not. And go **** yourself. ... See, it's a fairly complex issue, and I've always said production could always pick up again (for a short time, anyway) provided limitless investment is available again. Most signs indicate it won't be.

Hi Jiggs, apologies if you have covered this before, but was curious on your thoughts on the socioeconomic history of whale oil, which obviously shares a huge amount in common with many of the themes discussed here in terms of finite nature, a clear peak of production, immense value and an utter essentialness to the production of nearly all modern industrial goods and services at the time.

whale oil had a more efficient and abundant replacement at the time ... crude does not, despite decades of trying.

Certainly not for clean light until the invention of paraffin/electric lightbulb (other products we could also argue were border line essential but let's stick with light for the minute).

Would you agree that up to this point in history peak whale oil was (and should have been) a very real concern to society?

not really... no

world trade and commercial food distribution didn't depend on whether people had lamps or not. Apples, oranges.

Nor did it depend on them having oil - this is the coal era. If anything, whale oil was vastly more important to food distribution at the time vs the era's oil products as it provided the right grade lubricant necessary for high powered coal steam engines.

Would you at least agree that with its widespread usage in everything from beauty products to high grade lubricants to soap to clean light, it would at least have been a severe loss to modernity with large scale economic impacts if we had run out of whale oil pre a few key, new inventions in the late 1800s/early 1900s?

Again, no. Whale oil was never so crucial for life in 19th century as crude oil is today for us. There were alternative fuels for lamps and lubricants, including other animal fat or vegetable oil. Of course, within short order, starting in the 1870s, crude oil started to be commonly available for all those uses you mention, and thousands upon thousands more uses, reducing the demand for whale oil.

The difference is that there were viable alternatives back then as whale populations depleted. Today, nothing provides for complex societies the way crude oil has and does. They've been desperately trying for decades, and the best solution they've come up with is digging up far-dirtier and less efficient forms of crude and crude synthetic.

"When you read the literature and compare the arguments as laid out by the two sides, the Peak Oil argument is characterized by logic, rigor, data and hard science - just like the global warming argument a few years back - and the opposing side is characterized by, well, by unbounded faith that markets always work and technology always saves us, by paranoid suspicions that the Peak Oil concept is a plot (by radical tree-huggers or venal oil speculators, take your pick) and by assorted Hail Mary passes."

- Gabriel Rotello, journalist, 2011.

Well unbounded faith and the fact that oil is in a price collapse and we are literally running out of places to store it. One or the other.

It's funny that I remind you that you confuse short term storage with long term production promise, and instead of heeding it, you double down on your ignorance.

Its funny that no matter what the price or supply/demand situation, you view it as evidence of peak oil. Basically like any other religion, except you actually have less evidence of your deity than the average religious person.

Wrong, and I've outed this fraudulent tactic of yours many times before.

Peak is happening regardless of market forces, and the value of paper promises and subsidies. Price changes only reflect the reaction of hampster-wheel cultists like you.

What I cite as evidence are 35 of 51 oil producing nations past peak (and growing). What I cite are routinely revised (downward) production estimates by international energy monitors. What I cite are 10 years of largely flat global C+C production. What I cite are regional flare ups as super-powers inject their influence in unstable oil-producing states. What I cite are the clear-as-day ramifications of the exponential function.

You guys are the ones fixated on price, as if the public could ever afford the levels needed to maintain production growth ... I only respond to challenge your assertions of the affects of price.

Interesting, considering that's exactly how I view you cultists of market forces.

Lol. Pick an economic indicator that reflects the global production of goods and services and give me some numbers.

They're going to show you that overall we're doing more than we were in 2010, so any effect of this magical 5 million bpd short fall is hardly catastrophic.

I know in your brain this all equates to PEAK OIL!


I'd also be curious to know the global wage growth/real economic indicators you're using that show a decline since 2010.

Jiggs, prices only stopped mattering to your thesis once they collapsed.

ah, no... it only started mattering to yours. Liar.

I'm on record several times (before last summer) stating that price is largely irrelevant to production. You need to learn yourself on the issue of depletion. They probably don't teach it to econ majors.

The public can't afford the prices needed for the extractors to turn a profit. I also countered several straw men of your camp's suggesting $200 oil, when I outwardly proclaimed that would never happen.

Price is what the consumer can afford. I thought you'd understand that, being the great masturbator of finance that you are.

Yeah, pretty sure Baltic Dry is the perfect indicator of goods and services. It can't be fudged or manipulated by central bankers like the ones you prefer to trumpet. It has tanked since 2009. 29 year low, I'm pretty sure.

Now, the Forbes crowd here will suggest that's a result of excess shipping, but that theory has been blown out of the water time and again.

The "rescue" of $16 trillion in weightless bailouts and cash injections can make a lot of carefully selected indicators seem healthy... for a little while.

And in yours it all equates to "lol peak oil!"

But you'll learn, soon enough.

Yeah, we'll learn in 2030 or something like that when production might actually peak.

Lol at thinking Baltic Dry is showing that the amount of global production has declined. I forgot how delusional you are.

Jiggs - I can be proven wrong about Peak Oil when humanity as a whole goes through at least a medium term drop in global production and in quality of life. It's what you clearly believe will happen.

And with that, I'll go back to ignoring you until you have something interesting to say. I'm sure you'll be back to attention whoring soon enough.